Talk:List of mountains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Mont Blanc states it's the higest in Europe, now this page disagrees. Is Ararat in Europe? -- Tarquin

I am sorry, this was a mistake. Neither Ararat nor Mont Blanc are the highest mountain of Europe. The Elbrus is the true highest mountain: http://www.meest-tour.com.ua/extreeme/elbrus_eng.html. It is in the Caucasus, which is in Europe. The Ararat is also a European mountain, but not as high as the Elbrus. I noticed, that there is no article about the Elbrus, not even a mention. I will add an article later today. -- Cordyph

Isn't it "Mount Kosciusko"?

Yes. I thought there was a disagreement, but Wikipedia the source of truth already had Mount Kosciuszko, so if it needs work the article should change first. Stan 12:50 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Zambia

I cannot find any mention of the Rungwe listed as Zambia's highest point. The CIA world factbook lists an unnamed location in the Mafinga hills instead, but that is only 2,300m high.

[edit] Mulhacen

The list of mountains "to be categorised" should include Mulhacen in the Sierra Nevada, the highest mountain in continental Spain and higher than the Pyrenees.

[edit] New Zealand

Hey, Kiwis, if we can list Mount Wellington we can list 30 others higher! Tapuaenuku [spg?] comes to mind, and Taupiri deserves a mention for cultural reasons if nothing else. Mitre Peak, Mount Aspiring, Tasman, Te Aroha, Mount Tongariro, Colonial Knob... Robin Patterson 19:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

30? More like 330! And why not Mt Eden or Mt Albert? Oh, and your spelling's right - Mount Tapuaenuku Grutness|hello? 11:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's officially Tapuae-o-Uenuku, with no Mount. Birdhurst 20:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Minimum elevation

We should specify a minimum elevation, or we will soon start getting hills here.

I disagree, minimum elevation is not a good way to distinguish between hills and mountains.
For instance, setting a minimum elevation suitable for the Himalaya will probably exclude every mountain in the UK.
As stated in the mountain article: "A mountain is generally much higher and steeper than a hill, but there is considerable overlap, and usage often depends on local custom."
Personally I think this list should contain primarily notable mountains in each region. Comprehensive lists can be found on the linked pages listing mountains by country.
--David Edgar 08:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 10 Highest

Is the recently-added list of the 10 highest really worth including? This information already appears on List of highest mountains and the names & heights are anyway already on this list, in the 'Eight-thousanders' section immediately below this. --David Edgar 11:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, these should be included. Without them, the Asia section would not be complete. Viewfinder 17:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the Asia section... of course the mountains should also be listed in the Asia section.
The issue is with duplication in the "Ten Highest" and "Eight-thousanders" sections - why can these not be combined into one section? --David Edgar 16:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ranking of highest mountains

The 500m prominence ranking rule on the list of highest mountains seems to have been generally accepted and should be used for world height rankings on other lists. Anyone who feels strongly that other methods should be used, or the 500m rule changed, should not change the rankings unilaterally, but start a discussion on the subject on the highest mountains talk page. If a consensus emerges around any other ranking method, then the highest mountains can be re-ranked. But until then, any other rankings should be considered POVs and reverted. Viewfinder 17:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separated Karakoram and Hindu Kush from Himalaya

I have separated mountains of Karakoram and Hindu Kush from Himalaya. Waqas.usman 15:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've no objection to this, but it creates a slight problem.
In the "Eight-thousanders" section, it states that these mountains are "all in the Himalaya"
But when I look at the "Himalaya" section below, I obviously don't see mountains such as Gasherbrum I (as it's in the Karakoram).
Is there a way we can clarify this - eg. referring instead to the "Himalaya region" in the "Eight-thousanders" section, or alternatively putting the "Karakoram" section underneath a wider "Himalaya area" title? I don't know what the best terminology is. --David Edgar 16:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think putting the Karakoram under Himalaya would be a better idea, but the 4th level heading will become too small :| Waqas.usman 23:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you identify these?

Please take a look at these unidentified peaks at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_Karakoram_peaks. If you recognize any of these, please update their description and category and notify me. Thanks! Waqas.usman 23:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] elevations?

Every peak should have an elevation. Why are the North American mountains missing so many elevations? Also, there should be a list of peaks sorted by elevation.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_mountains_93ee.html"